Religious tolerance a matter of respect, not agreement

Published: Sunday, November 05, 2000

In this country, we've been a bit of a braggart about our religious freedom, our separation of church and state. Not for us the religious wars of Europe, the religious repression in other parts of the world.

Yet, in our predominately Christian society, we really have not tested our ideals. But the testing is coming.

According to a report in the November issue of Church & State, the first Hindu priest on Sept. 14 offered a prayer to begin the legislative day in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The prayer itself drew the attention of virtually no one," wrote Steve Benen. "No one, that is, except the Family Research Council," a Religious Right lobbying group in Washington, D.C.

The council sent an electronic newsletter to its supporters in which it "condemned Samuldrala's prayer, disparaged religious pluralism and said only Christianity deserves government support."

In essence, this organization argues that Christianity is the state religion, invoking the country's founders and saying, "They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

Religious tolerance, according to the Family Research Council, Benen said, "embraces biblical truth while allowing freedom of conscience."

Under this narrow definition, Jews probably would not be included.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which monitors publications of the Family Research Council, immediately notified the national media about the statement, which executive directory Barry Lynn said, "reeks of religious bigotry."

Embarrassed, the Council removed the offending language from the group's Web site, said it had not been approved and had been published accidentally, Benen said.

Some, including the director of Americans United, believe that the practice of opening the legislative sessions with prayer should be discontinued. But, if it does remain the practice, it should be open, Lynn said.

While I do not agree that the practice should necessarily be dropped, I do agree with Lynn that it has to be open to other religious and philosophical traditions should a member of Congress wish to issue an invitation.

Tolerance does not mean agreement. It simply means treating others with respect. Anytime we fail to respect the rights of one religion, we put our own liberty at risk. Why is that so hard to realize?

I thought it was interesting a few months ago when I received a news release from a Hindu organization that supported the practice of public prayer at high school football games, even though the prayer is Christian. But, how many high schools, I wonder, would allow their Hindu students to voice such a prayer?

If students have the choice, it might happen at Lubbock High School, for example. Would Lubbock's Christians complain?

Religious diversity is not an easy issue. Either all are protected or all are at risk. Which will it be?